Karnataka CM appeals to farmers not to commit suicide

Udupi, Feb 16: A man, who was trapped in 15-feet-deep hole following a landslide during borwell digging work at a remote area in the coastal district, was finally rescued after a prolonged effort today.

The man, identified as Rohit, suffered minor injuries in the incident.

The incident took place at Maravanthe village near Baindur in Udupi district.

Rohit was trapped when the land around borewell was being dug collapsed suddenly. It took around six hours for the rescue workers to rescue him.

Bengaluru, May 31: With places of worship expected to reopen on June 8, the Karnataka State Minorities Commission has released guidelines for mosques and dargahs, that include social distancing, temperature testing and compulsory hand washing.

Abdul Azeem, commission chairman said, "Everyone will have to maintain one-metre distance and carry their prayer mats. They will all be scanned and Farz prayers will be held for 10-15 minutes. Friday prayers should be completed within 20 minutes."

Distribution of tabarukh, shaking hands, and overcrowding inside mosques will not be allowed.  The Muzrai department also issued guidelines for temples, like mandatory face masks, sanitisation of sanctum sanctorum and thermal screening.

In a letter, the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Department mentioned that while temple authorities and devotees should wear masks, priests, helpers and workers are exempt, in the core area of the temple.

"Devotees should be scanned using infrared thermometers at the temple entrance, and must be given hand sanitiser. The temple trust is expected to bear the expenses," it added.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.